linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] sched/events: Introduce cfs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170328133744.0d93fe83@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:37:44 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] sched/events: Introduce cfs_rq load tracking
 trace event

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:36:26 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> But why play games, and rely on the design of the code? A
> TRACE_EVENT_CONDTION() is more robust and documents that this
> tracepoint should not be called when cfs_rq is NULL.

In other words, what are you trying to save for not using the
TRACE_EVENT_CONDITION()?

-- Steve